3 ms·
A view can't be censorship. Censorship is the compulsory suppression of speech, and arguably the compulsion has to be done by a government (if it's not done by
by denton-scratch 5y ago
A view can't be censorship. Censorship is the compulsory suppression of speech, and arguably the compulsion has to be done by a government (if it's not done by a government, then it's not compulsory). Censorship is an act, not an opinion.
- tomp 5y agoNo, censorship is the intent to prevent someone from speaking. Whether you succeed or not depends on other things (in particular, an individual’s power). All else is a red herring. As the saying goes, ”In the Soviet Union, we have freedom of speech. But in the US, you have freedom after* speech.”
- denton-scratch 5y ago> censorship is the intent to prevent someone from speaking. You can't mean that seriously. If I successfully form the intention to stop someone speaking, but fail to carry through (perhaps because I don't own a police force), are you really saying that I've succeeded in censoring them? It seems to be the fashion these days to construct arguments based on redefining words. If "censorship" is a kind of intention, then there doesn't appear to be much wrong with censorship. You've redefined a word that is generally considered to refer to something bad, to mean something that isn't bad. That's sort-of OK, but it means that we have to put a glossary of definitions at the top of anything we say.
- tomp 5y agoA failed attempt at censorship/murder doesn't make something not censorship/murder. Intent matters. Fortunately, Neil Young failed.
- denton-scratch 5y agoYou're wrong; intent to murder isn't murder, unless you actually murder someone. Intent to murder isn't even an offence. Same with censorship.